Nether Madder and Green Soudley Rly

[Nearholmer]

Character and double-track. Does it have to be double-track?

 

I get the appeal of being able to let a couple of trains circulate while you have a coffee, but I do wonder whether single-track might better suggest a smaller firm. 
 

Glad that the NM&GS stock will form the backbone, and I think I’m feeling some sort of Cambrian vibe in it somewhere.

[Joseph_Pestell]

13 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Martin

 

Crikey, very different indeed.

 

Again, very operable, but in a different way, and I would think a good deal less intensive effort needed to get to the basic ability to circulate a train or two.

 

One danger, if it is a danger, in this one is that it might end-up lacking the unique character that oozed from Mark 1, but a lot depends upon how you landscape it and what you run on it.

 

Kevin

 

A very different concept. I wonder if it might not be better to revert to single track main line with another station where they meet, perhaps something along the lines of Dovey Jct.

 

And perhaps run the main line below the branch terminus in tunnel so that there is more space to develop the branch terminus.

[Joseph_Pestell]

9 hours ago, Martin S-C said:

Hi Jim - yes, it will still be the NM&GSR. Having collected and painted most of the stock for the original layout I am definitely going to get to use it! The branch will be the Witts End Light Railway as well. The NM&GSR is however now more of a regional concern and to me feels a lot like the Midland & South Western Junction. Or as I think I said earlier, the Midland & Great Northern. Using Hunstanton as the catalyst for the terminus also makes me think holidaymakers and intense summer Saturday workings. This version will be about 50/50 passenger and freight while v1.0 was very much favouring freight. I am having a hard think though as to where it is set in the country. I can't really use the Forest of Dean any more as there were no double track lines there. I am not sure if the Monmouth-Ross-Hereford area was double tracked but will investigate. A holiday destination between the wars though definitely ought to be the coast and that's a problem. I don't think the Wye Valley was ever a mass train-loads of tourists destination. Its popularity arose with private car ownership and largely post WWII. However perhaps in my fiction the region became sufficiently popular with weekenders and fortnighters 30 years earlier than in our world with summer seaside levels of traffic, though the idea of candy floss and ice cream stands at Symonds Yat makes me shudder.
 

 

 

Gloucester - Ross - Hereford was single track but with quite "main line" trains, Manor plus five coaches.

 

The Wye Valley Line Chepstow - Monmouth via Tintern did have excursion traffic with a dedicated platform at Tintern, but also single track.

[Martin S-C]

6 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Hi Martin,

I can see the reason for all the talk of CJF, now, and to my eyes there are some typical CJF problems. (Sorry!)

• There’s almost no room for non-railway scenery.
• Unrelated tracks passing close to each other.
• Goods yards are cramped.
• Lots of Double junctions out in the open.
• Relatively sharp 90deg turns following each other in the right-hand dumbbell.
• Duckunders making access more difficult.
   

Also, I worry about the storage capacity and how it will work in practice because of the lack of crossovers. Edit: Maybe the reversing loops obviate the need for crossovers? Not sure.

I wonder if it would be possible to engineer a lifting section across the doorway that works reliably rather than abandoning the idea? After all, you know what the problems are now and you know that this is the first thing to get working before spending time on anything else.

 

If you could cross the doorway then the plan could be simpler while still having all the same elements, with more room to breathe and more chance of being able to do some of the things on your wishlist.

 

I hope this message doesn’t put you off. It’s offered constructively and obviously you may not see some of these things as "problems" at all!

Thank you for the comments Phil, all input is very welcome because one of my past faults was not listening to good advice. Nothing in what you said puts me off at all. Its why I throw plans up on the forum, because of the criticism that it generates.

1) Yes, I'm very aware of that and its one of my main concerns. I can widen the baseboards at the east loop so that there is more scenery beyond the boundary fence. This will allow me to shift everything a little bit away from the backscene and open the look of the thing up somewhat. Part of the main line run could also be tunnelled allowing more open space generally.

2) This was a problem with the first plan as well, in fact more so I fear. I don't like it either. Its that "track mat" look isn't it? With the narrow room I am not sure how to address that without dropping the concept completely and going for something else.

3) Yes, true. I do enjoy shunting goods yards though so always have that urge to squeeze one more siding in.

4) Yes, that's a feature of the plan though and I see no alternative unless I put them in tunnels which is something I'd really rather avoid.

5) I am still massaging things and can ease those a bit more I think. I am still fiddling and easing everything where I can by stages.

6) There is only one duckunder to the branch terminus and I am happy with that one. As I mentioned before if the branch is operated by a push pull set or some kind of Col Stephenson railbus there is no need to even go there to operate it, just the one daily freight working to be shunted. The east loop's hole is for maintenance only so will not be used most of the time. The storage loops can largely be accessed/operated from the doorway if need be.

Trains will still be quite short so three can be stored on each passing loop in the storage area giving the line a capacity of 12 trains, 14 if one includes one more each at terminus and colliery. Control is digital so no need for section breaks in the storage loops. Trains that are short such as maybe a milk working or a small local passenger create more space as I can very nearly buffer up one train behind the next.

I am very reluctant indeed to use a lifting flap again.

Given the comments about double track I will try a single track version and see how that looks.

[Harlequin]

58 minutes ago, Martin S-C said:

6) There is only one duckunder to the branch terminus and I am happy with that one. As I mentioned before if the branch is operated by a push pull set or some kind of Col Stephenson railbus there is no need to even go there to operate it, just the one daily freight working to be shunted. The east loop's hole is for maintenance only so will not be used most of the time. The storage loops can largely be accessed/operated from the doorway if need be.

Trains will still be quite short so three can be stored on each passing loop in the storage area giving the line a capacity of 12 trains, 14 if one includes one more each at terminus and colliery. Control is digital so no need for section breaks in the storage loops. Trains that are short such as maybe a milk working or a small local passenger create more space as I can very nearly buffer up one train behind the next.

I am very reluctant indeed to use a lifting flap again.
 

 

With the duckunders remember that operating is not the only time you might (or might not) need to access the separated areas. There's also tracklaying, ballasting, track weathering, track cleaning, making scenery, fixing backscenes, planting buildings, etc., etc., etc...

 

Stacking trains in storage loops obviously affects operations (although, if you're prepared to see the trains you don't want at that moment, to do circuits of the scenic area to open the path for the train you do want, then maybe that's not such a big problem).

 

If the lifting section and possibly some of the support structure either side was made of ply or metal then the problems of wood shrinkage could be largely eliminated.

 

Edited December 12, 2020 by Harlequin

[Martin S-C]

Over the next couple of days I'll try three more versions, one as single track and a complete redesign with a doorway flap (both single and double track). I'll drop them in here and people can have their wicked way with them!

[Joseph_Pestell]

5 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

A very different concept. I wonder if it might not be better to revert to single track main line with another station where they meet, perhaps something along the lines of Dovey Jct.

 

And perhaps run the main line below the branch terminus in tunnel so that there is more space to develop the branch terminus.

 

Better even than Dovey Jc, Lydbrook Jct in the Forest of Dean (Ross - Monmouth).

[Martin S-C]

3 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Better even than Dovey Jc, Lydbrook Jct in the Forest of Dean (Ross - Monmouth).

And here is a crude sketch of Lydbrook Junction layout. Can anyone please explain the purpose of all the loops. I assume exchange facilities for freight coming from Lydbrook that needed to be reversed and sent to Ross. Plus apparently a freight lay-by loop (bottom track). Is that right?

I also assume a single track to Ross (the upper one) with two tracks serving the wire works.

Edited December 12, 2020 by Martin S-C
edit: typos

[Joseph_Pestell]

23 minutes ago, Martin S-C said:

And here is a crude sketch of Lydbrook Junction layout. Can anyone please explain the purpose of all the loops. I assume exchange facilities for freight coming from Lydbrook that needed to be reversed and sent to Ross. Plus apparently a freight lay-by loop (bottom track). Is that right?

I also assume a single track to Ross (the upper one) with two tracks serving the wire works.

 

Yes, only a single track to Ross.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Just checked on s-r-s.org. Their diagram shows fewer loops, and the two sidings into the factory.

 

I was not intending that you should completely replicate. You will need to integrate with access to the colliery.

[Martin S-C]

Yes, I just laid out the track plan I have in my copy of "The Ross, Monmouth and Pontypool Road Line" by Stanley C Jenkins, pub. by Oakwood and was hoping to get some explanation of all the loops so that I can delete those I don't need.

Monmouth Troy offers a more conventional junction layout.

My concern though is there isn't room for a station there between the colliery and the branch. I was also leaning towards an uncluttered main line. If I were to have a second station my preference would be for another terminus but that would probably require a gradient up to a terminus above the storage loops and that introduces another feature on my "avoid" list which is storage roads not easily accessible.

[Joseph_Pestell]

11 hours ago, Martin S-C said:

Yes, I just laid out the track plan I have in my copy of "The Ross, Monmouth and Pontypool Road Line" by Stanley C Jenkins, pub. by Oakwood and was hoping to get some explanation of all the loops so that I can delete those I don't need.

Monmouth Troy offers a more conventional junction layout.

My concern though is there isn't room for a station there between the colliery and the branch. I was also leaning towards an uncluttered main line. If I were to have a second station my preference would be for another terminus but that would probably require a gradient up to a terminus above the storage loops and that introduces another feature on my "avoid" list which is storage roads not easily accessible.

 

That makes a lot of sense.

 

I am sure that there are places around the South Wales Valleys where you could find junctions between single track routes without a station.

[CKPR]

2 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

I am sure that there are places around the South Wales Valleys where you could find junctions between single track routes without a station.

 

And in West Cumberland  at one of the most obscure junctions in the UK at Linefoot on the M&CR Derwent branch where it connected with the Northern Extension of the Cleator & Workington Junction Rly. Linefoot Junction did have a station, albeit one that was never actually used  (except for three months in 1908), and also served a colliery.

Edited December 13, 2020 by CKPR

[mpeffers]

On 10/12/2020 at 16:43, Martin S-C said:

...
Trains will be 4 x 57ft coaches plus a 4-4-0 loco and maybe a van or two. My chopped up Tri-Ang clerestories are down at around 50 ft length in some cases so I think trains will look about right in the platforms. That's another bugbear of mine - trains as long as platforms and having the platforms a fair bit longer than the trains using them was another Imperative Requirement.

...

Hi Martin,

 

First of all, good to see you back.

 

Just on this point, I do agree that it’s actually a nice visual effect not often seen on layouts (for obvious reasons). However, since the MSWJR has been mentioned, it’s maybe worth noting that their platforms weren’t actually all that long. The Swindon’s Other Railway site has a set of diagrams produced by the GWR at grouping with platform and siding lengths noted and most are around 300’ (which I assume to be usable length, excluding the ramps?). Some are much longer (Ludgershall, Swindon Town, etc.) but there are some 275’s and a 250’ in there. Even 180’ at Chedworth. Plenty of photos of MSWJR trains of 5+ bogie coaches that would likely have matched or exceeded the platform lengths. Even in the 1950s, the usual three-coach sets were strengthened by an extra two at weekends on at least one CWN I’ve seen, which would have pretty much filled the 300’ platforms by that point.

 

I don’t have a lot of knowledge or info on other lines to say if the MSWJR was an exception in this regard. If I was to hazard a guess at some reasoning, I wonder if the comparative lateness (no dates to hand, but I think the SMAR was opened in the 1870s, Cheltenham Extension commenced in the early 1880s and opened as a through route in 1891), focus on through traffic (large parts of particularly the Cheltenham Extension were fairly sparsely populated) and general lack of finance led to more pragmatic thinking regarding platform lengths?

[Martin S-C]

Thank you for those numbers, interesting to know. Yes, I'm sure it happened in the real world on quite a few occasions - Hunstanton itself is shown in later years with the platforms stuffed full of holiday trains - but my feeling is that in model railways it happens too often so its an aspect I want to avoid if at all possible. A modest train standing at a large platform on a model railway draws one's eye because such things are not so common.

My two 5ft platforms are 380 ft scale length and the 6ft pair are 457 ft, so starting to become a decent length for a secondary line. 4 57ft coaches a van and a 4-4-0 loco would be about 275 ft I think which is a nice ratio. Given the space I've got, which may seem a lot but once you put a 15ft long terminus in there the space soon diminishes, hence why I think a second major station in there would start to look too crowded. I wanted to resist the aspect of "clutter" which v1.0 suffered from, little bits here and there tucked into corners. You'll note that the first plan had all four corners used by tracks and this one has all four empty with three of them available for scenery - which I want to keep low key but effective rather that busy and full of cameos.

I am thinking of making the storage roads scenic as I did on v1.0 simply to make them less of an eyesore and simply so that trains standing on them look a little more appealing. The series of six parallel roads could also be used as a photographic set. This would consist of just tunnel mouths, ballasting and weathering with perhaps a boundary fence/hedge and a signal cabin or two but if I do that I can then make the fourth corner scenic as well. It won't look correct in realism terms but it will look less ugly. I suppose if you squinted hard you might just about imagine it's somewhere like Bullo Pill Yard.

I have thought more about tramways and I think I can make part of the branch run along a road edge in the SE corner and along part of the S wall. If I make the overline bridge where it crosses the main line a tunnel mouth there's also potential for making the approach to the terminus through a built up area giving it an aspect of the Welshpool & Llanfair, Wantage or Wisbech and giving me a little more depth to the branch terminus scene. There will probably also be scope to use the timber bridge design I was planning to have before along the S wall and which I discussed here.

That bonus would be balanced against a length of mainline track in a tunnel 2ft from the baseboard edge with only a 4" height clearance which makes alarm bells ring again


/\ /\ /\ Assuming the track curves in from the left and passes in front of the pair of what looks like 1920s villas, a road could enter from the backscene at the right, be crossed by the railway and run in front of it along the S wall. This view would then be looking E on the model.


/\ /\ /\ This scene has potential for the curve into the station.

(As an aside I wanted to add to that caption: "except in Porthmadog.")



/\ /\ /\ As does this.

The idea of tramways makes me think of the Forest again and if the branch is assumed to be a converted horse tramway in the Forest and coming out of it in a westerly or northerly direction then a river scene with bridges somewhere along the south wall near the colliery would represent the Wye. I'm trying to think up some features to develop mood and character.

Edited December 13, 2020 by Martin S-C

[Northroader]

A simple junction with a Forest of Dean connotation is Wyesham, just south of Monmouth where the Chepstow and Coleford lines diverge, the Coleford line being an old tram-road, fettled up. There’s a Halt platform before the divergence and not much else.

[Martin S-C]

It was the Coleford line I was thinking of, yes. Well spotted.

Quite a few of the Forest lines were fettled up tramways in fact.

[St Enodoc]

4 hours ago, Martin S-C said:

a length of mainline track in a tunnel 2ft from the baseboard edge with only a 4" height clearance which makes alarm bells ring again

And so they should. Don't do it.

[Nearholmer]

I keep looking at that branch terminus and thinking that you could give it space to breath by extending it back over the main-line track, but then maintain access to the track below by hinging the branch baseboard, so that it lifts-up like a car bonnet. The hinge would probably be best at the "entry" end of the terminus.

[Martin S-C]

Perhaps a hinge at each end since the BLT board is 8 ft long. Putting the main line back there into a tunnel and so allowing a full scenic treatment above it is tempting, but as has been wisely counselled, its not a good idea because 1) something is bound to derail back there and 2) tracks need cleaning and to me that still means by hand and not one of those track cleaning cars which never seem to do a proper job.

[Martin S-C]

Here is a version with the main line singled. I must confess I don't like it at all, though I'm not sure why. I think a single track version needs a complete rethink.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4bc0jtupgv3wbn1/NewPlan_Four.jpg

[Harlequin]

Hi Martin,

 

If you bridge the entrance door then I suggest the bridge should not attempt to be scenic, should be just one level and only the main lines should journey over it. That makes life much simpler!

Following on from that, since the storage area will also be more or less non-scenic it makes sense to position that to one side or the other of the entrance bridge so that the remainder of the room can be unbroken scenic area. (It might be worth investigating having the storage to the right of the door so that the scenic panorama presented to the visitor on entrance spans the entire length of the room...?)

Then your main line, single or double, can circumnavigate the room in a meandering fashion, without exploring it's limits too far.

A through station on the mainline would be more efficient spatially than a terminus and would avoid both the need for a mainline junction feeding it and the need for the mainline to pass by the station artificially. It could include all the same elements of a terminus, allowing trains to run through at speed (period speed!) as well as allowing trains to terminate and reverse if required.

If the through station incorporated the branch line junction, exactly as you have it in your major station now, then there would be no need for any junctions in the countryside except for possibly the colliery, which could be off the main line, off the branch, or maybe terminating the branch.

You might think that this all sounds a bit anodyne but maybe the simpler bare bones would make it easier to flesh out the character and interest? (Your stations always seem to be naturally characterful to me, BTW.)

 

If the branch line remained outside the main line along its entire length then you wouldn't have any problem with the main line or storage loops being covered - but it would, on the face of it, be a bit boring again.

 

Edited December 14, 2020 by Harlequin

[Annie]

1 hour ago, Martin S-C said:

Here is a version with the main line singled. I must confess I don't like it at all, though I'm not sure why. I think a single track version needs a complete rethink.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4bc0jtupgv3wbn1/NewPlan_Four.jpg

One thing I immediately noticed Martin is that the layout didn't look so crammed with trackwork and looked more open and spacious.  There was in effect more room to model what lies between the boundary fences which I think is important when modelling minor railways.

[Harlequin]

I just had an idea about a possible arrangement for a high level terminus that would hide the storage loops but still leave them accessible with minimal tracks covering other tracks:

 

The downside is that you'd have to duck-under to perform manual fiddling but the BLT board would be higher making that a bit easier and some fiddling could be done where the main circuit emerges near the doorway.

 

Edited December 14, 2020 by Harlequin

[Joseph_Pestell]

I find myself wondering if there needs to be that much hidden storage area (both in number and in length) when you have plenty of storage areas on the visible parts of the layout.

 

Reducing the hidden storage would open up other options for the branch terminus.

Edited December 14, 2020 by Joseph_Pestell
Typo